About a month ago, DailyTech first brought you a glimpse at Ford's
Edge HySeries crossover utility vehicle (CUV). In its current form, the concept
features a hydrogen fuel cell, a 336-volt lithium-ion battery pack and electric
motors for propulsion. Ford can also adapt the chassis to accommodate
gasoline-electric or diesel-electric hybrid powertrains.

The Edge HySeries’ powertrain is mounted low in the chassis
for better weight distribution. One electric motor is located at each axle
while the fuel cell and batteries are located under the driver and passenger
seat respectively. The 350-bar hydrogen fuel tank is mounted along the
vehicle's centerline under the center console.

Since Edmunds was
given the keys to a prototype vehicle, performance wasn't quite up to
production levels. The vehicle was admittedly running at 50% of its potential,
so acceleration was a bit on the slow side compared to its gasoline-engined
counterpart – the additional 870 pounds of heft doesn’t help either. On the
other hand, the vehicle was nearly silent under acceleration with just the hum
of the fuel cell compressor penetrating the cabin.

With a fully topped off battery and a full hydrogen tank,
the HySeries should offer a driving range of 225 miles and a combined
city/highway rating of 41MPG. This is quite
favorable to the newly revised 2008 EPA ratings for some of the most
popular hybrid automobiles on the North American market. The Prius, Camry Hybrid
and Civic Hybrid are rated at 46MPG, 34MPG and 42MPG combined respectively
under the new EPA guidelines.

Yeah, it would be oh so hard to make an extra trip to get the TV and/or moulding. Why don't you just buy a semi and then you can carry around everything you could ever need in the back, so that you can save on a trip if you ever decide to buy a new living and bed room for your house, while carrying your kids, wife, and 4 best friends as well.

Anyways, it's hard to imagine anyone with three children coping with a three-door hatchback unless they're too poor to afford a mid-sized car, in which case this whole debate would be a moot point to them.

> "Yeah, it would be oh so hard to make an extra trip to get the TV and/or moulding..."

Extra trips use extra gas, now don't they? And when those "extra trips" mean living your children waiting on the side of the road for you to come back for them, its certainly not a practical.

> "it's hard to imagine anyone with three children coping with a three-door hatchback unless they're too poor to afford a mid-sized car..."

Ah, but that midsized car can't carry that TV or moulding even without the kids in the back. The trunk isn't large enough. And you've obviously never tried to take three kids and their sports equipment in a mid-sized car. It doesn't fit, period...with or without a TV in the back.

And you're still ignoring the fact that extra space is only one of the many reasons people choose SUVs. I listed four more in the thread above. There's probably a few I didn't think of as well.

Try fitting that TV, a couple pieces of 10' moulding, three children and their soccer and baseball equipment in your three-door hatchback.

Tow bar and trailer... My Mini has one. You'd be surprised what it can pull! (referring back to one of your points earlier about SUVs and towing)

Are you trying to tell be that that load is normal too, incidentally? Seems a little bit excessive for an average trip. I know for a fact you can get three kids, football equipment and a large person complete with guitar in a Mini too, let alone the more spacious 3 door super minis of late.

(my apologies for the standard of English, its been a long day here at the University of Cardiff and I may have been drinking)

If you're seriously trying to position a Mini Cooper as a solution for towing, you've lost all credibility.

> "Are you trying to tell be that that load is normal too, incidentally?"

You miss the point. If you have to haul that load only occasionally, you still need the vehicle. For most people, buying a dedicated smaller car just for commuting isn't an option. Though if you're commuting an ultra-long distance, then its cheaper to buy that extra car regardless, due to the gas savings...and in fact, most people who commute 100-200 miles/day DO use a dedicated car just for that, even if they drive an SUV nights and weekends.

quote: If you have to haul that load only occasionally, you still need the vehicle.

Actually, degenerating into the whole "I need to carry big loads" is pretty specious. Your prior arguments were well reasoned and backed by statistics - with this one you dropped off the deep end.

Home Depot rents trucks (probably horrible fuel hogs, but so what) for $20/hour to haul loads home. I could rent one about 25-30 times a year and only then equal the extra gas costs to drive a less efficient vehicle all the time.

Tell me you really "need" to do it that frequently?? And no fair saying its your job or some such marlarky...especially since you already said you only drive like 5 miles a decade. ....

If you're seriously trying to position a Mini Cooper as a solution for towing, you've lost all credibility.

Oh please....now you're just picking fights for the sake of it. His point was he *could* tow external loads if necessary because of something that wouldn't fit internally, even with a small economical car (of course up to a limit much less than that of a big truck or whatnot). Not that it was *better* at towing in either capacity or on a regular basis (frankly, regardless of the rated towing capacity of a Mini, I'd hate to do that to the transmission with any frequency, myself). For someone who posts as articulately as you can, pretending to misunderstand that is just being churlish.

> "Tell me you really "need" to [carry large loads] that frequently?? "

Myself? No, not frequently. The point was that *some* people need to do it frequently. And even when you only need it infrequently, renting a truck is not always practical, in terms of time, money, or even simple convenience. Just last weekend I purchased a carving from an antique store downtown. Now, I could have spent $100, waited a week, and had them deliver it. Or I could have driven to find a Home Depot, rented a truck, left my car there, driven back to the store, loaded the purchase, driven home, driven back to Home Depot to get my car, then driven home yet again. Or I could have just done what I did...and tossed it in the back of my SUV, saving myself hours of time.

Maybe twice a month I need to move something large. Does that justify the SUV to me? It sure does...even ignoring all the times I have to carry multiple children. I could probably fit my own children and their sports equipment into a midsize car...though admittedly with less convenience and comfort. But a third of those trips, I wind up carrying some other children as well. Sometimes as many as six total kids at a time. That's not extremely common...but I don't want to stop and rent a truck when it does happen.

And of course, carrying capacity is only ONE of the five reasons to own an SUV I mentioned. Six, if you count offroad capability (which I didn't).

> "His point was he *could* tow external loads if necessary ..."

Only those loads that weigh less than 1400 lbs. For anyone with a boat, travel trailer, or any other of the countless loads which weigh more than this-- you're out of luck.

> "pretending to misunderstand that is just being churlish. ..."

He specifically referenced my earlier statement when he mentioned towing capacity...NOT in reference to adding a little carrying space. I think his intent was clear.

quote: And you've obviously never tried to take three kids and their sports equipment in a mid-sized car. It doesn't fit, period...with or without a TV in the back.

masher, what are you on about? You think having children is a new thing? Do you think we don't have children here in Europe? Face it, SUVs are a relatively new trend only existing for the last ten years or so. People did acctually have children before that you know. The children needed to be carried to their various sports events then also. Maby more then than now, if anything.

And about that towing craze of yours, you should really opt for a turbodiesel engine, not a gasoline one. They have a much higher tourqe rating. Like the VW 2.0 TDI in this one for example:http://www.worldcarfans.com/news.cfm/newsID/206030... That would also consume under 6 liters per 100 km, wich google suggests is around 40 mpg.

1984 Mini Mayfair, so no. We used it to take assorted crap to the tip and such. Also to do the odd car boot sale.

If you're seriously trying to position a Mini Cooper as a solution for towing, you've lost all credibility.

No, but you can tow an average sized trailer with average things in. I'm not suggesting you go and tow a boat or a bloody caravan! The load in question was a 32"tv. That it could pull, easily. Also larger cars such as the Ford Mondeo could easily tow a small boat and definitely a caravan. How many people have these things too. They're really not all that common here (well boats aren't) You cant really justify a nations obsession with SUVs because I minority occasionally tow a boat. Anyways if you really must tow such a thing a lot a two wheel drive SUV isn't going to cut it, thus reinforcing the point I made earlier.

How much did you pay for your trailer, if you even own one. Where do you store it when not in use. and what do you do if it starts raining. Maybe you don't worry about rain but in miami it rains all the time and at times when you least expect it.

For the guy that rents the $20/hr home depot truck, you apperently don't pay per mile. I have rent u-hauls before and have to pay the daily rate along with $1.25 per mile, in my truck that does 15 miles per gallon that equates to $18.75 per gallon of gas. Along with paying for the miles I also have to return the truck with the same gas/diesel i got it with. So how much are you really saving, say you have to do this 6-8 per year and an average of 60 miles to and fro. Do this with my 15 mile per gallon truck and a 25 mile per gallon honda v-6, with an average of 12,000 miles per year and $2.50 per gallon of gas. I actually only have about 15,000 miles on my 2 1/2 year truck.

That is $1200 for the honda on gas and $2000 for the truck. That is an $800 dollar difference and 320 gallons a year difference. Now add the rented truck cost to the honda [60miles*1.25=$75=$20=95+10(gas)=105]*8=$840. It turns out about the same money spent on gas plus less time spent and more convenient to own a heavy gas sucker truck. Plus it looks nicer than the honda in my opinion and well worth the $800 difference.

"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet. A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis